Page 17 of 17

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:27 am
by Sappho
I am coming into this discussion late, but here are my 2 cents:

1. There is no evidence of men dominating humanity for any great length of time in terms of human existence. If you take prehistory into account--and most of human existence took place during prehistory--women dominated humanity for most of our existence. Men were drones... good for reproduction, hunting large game, and dying to defend the women and children. This is the time of the Great Goddess, which continued until approximately 3,000-5,000 years ago.

Even in the past 2,000 years, when the male-dominated warrior tribes who worshiped male sky gods took over most of Europe and Asia, male dominance wasn't complete. Women had leadership of the Iroquois 7 Nations Confederacy and were equal in the vast majority of First Nations in the Americas. It was the same in much of Africa. European colonialism changed women's roles in native society's and redefined them in the history books.

Cultural bias also comes into play when we look at anthropological descriptions of gender roles in all societies, from the prehistoric to our own. What race, religion, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political philosophy and citizenship does the observer claim? Many scholars will tell you straight out. The ones who don't are usually white guys from the US or Europe--as if that's the default setting for human. Bias is often unwitting--the Englishmen who didn't realize that the Chief they were negotiating with, who wore leather pants and carried weapons, was female, for example. The archaeologists who label all female figurines "unknown fertility figures" and all male ones, "votive God statues" are another.

2. Bree was commenting on a study that was covered in an Associated Press article. It was all over the Internet news sites last week. Part of Bree's homeschooling was to read science articles and discuss them. She is still trying to educate herself. The author of "Men are from Mars", John Gray, got his PhD from a mail order diploma mill. He is not a real expert on anything except being a con artist.

One thing scientists agree on is that there is greater variation within each gender than there is between each gender. Some women, like me, have very little upper body strength, while others are Olympic weight lifters and can out lift the average man or woman. My son's sensei is a tiny old lady and she could wipe the floor with every person here.

Bonus Penny: Do you know the strongest muscle in the human body? The uterus! Only women have one. I only used mine twice, though. Too bad we can't carry groceries with it. Then again, my youngest son still lives at home, and he's 6 foot tall and full of muscle, and willing to carry heavy objects for Mom.

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:39 pm
by Susan
I guess I would have named the heart as the strongest muscle since it is in constant motion our entire life. I thought the uterus was an organ not a muscle. I never took biology in school so it makes sense I'd get it wrong.

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:58 pm
by Lurker
Susan wrote:I guess I would have named the heart as the strongest muscle since it is in constant motion our entire life. I thought the uterus was an organ not a muscle.
It's both, just as hearts are. They both consist of muscular tissue.

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:30 am
by kwicherbichen
One thing scientists agree on is that there is greater variation within each gender than there is between each gender. Some women, like me, have very little upper body strength, while others are Olympic weight lifters and can out lift the average man or woman. My son's sensei is a tiny old lady and she could wipe the floor with every person here
I understand that, but...

Are you trying to say that the average man and the average woman have the same strength?

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:35 am
by Sappho
kwicherbichen wrote:
One thing scientists agree on is that there is greater variation within each gender than there is between each gender. Some women, like me, have very little upper body strength, while others are Olympic weight lifters and can out lift the average man or woman. My son's sensei is a tiny old lady and she could wipe the floor with every person here
I understand that, but...

Are you trying to say that the average man and the average woman have the same strength?
No, the average man is stronger than the average woman in terms of upper body strength. And yes, the strongest male weightlifter can out-lift the strongest female weightlifter, of course. Within each gender there are great variations, greater than the difference between the theoretical "average man and woman."

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:38 am
by Sappho
Lurker wrote:
Susan wrote:I guess I would have named the heart as the strongest muscle since it is in constant motion our entire life. I thought the uterus was an organ not a muscle.
It's both, just as hearts are. They both consist of muscular tissue.
Yes, and the uterus is even stronger than the heart, because it has to push a baby out of a narrow body opening. I learned this in Lamaze class. Thus, women are stronger than men, I like to joke, because we have the strongest muscle. But I still get my son and husband to carry the groceries!

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:39 am
by Aithne
Sappho wrote: No, the average man is stronger than the average woman in terms of upper body strength. And yes, the strongest male weightlifter can out-lift the strongest female weightlifter, of course. Within each gender there are great variations, greater than the difference between the theoretical "average man and woman."
Wow, it would have taken me 3 large paragraphs to say what you did in 3 sentences. Well done!

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:03 pm
by kwicherbichen
I don't understand what you're trying to say....

If the average man is stronger than the average woman, then what are you trying to say? I mean... most women are not olympic... whatevers.

We have the strongest muscle, but how often do you use it? Okay, I don't use my uterus to help me pull up instruments for band.

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:12 am
by Languorous Lass
Sappho wrote: Bonus Penny: Do you know the strongest muscle in the human body? The uterus! Only women have one. I only used mine twice, though.
Sapph, if you're referring to your two childbirths here, I have to quibble with you. I've never given birth, but my uterus works regularly. I know because it gives me nasty cramps. :smt013
kwicherbichen wrote:We have the strongest muscle, but how often do you use it? Okay, I don't use my uterus to help me pull up instruments for band.
kwitcherbichen, you're a female? :shock: I would have bet good money that you're a twelve-year-old boy.

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:36 pm
by kwicherbichen
This coming from someone who loves sinfest so much that they update their avatar with each issue?

When I was younger, I got no cramps.

When I don't eat, I get no cramps.

When I work out more, I get no cramps.

When I'm average, I get little cramps.

When I'm really lazy and pig out, I get major cramps. :(

LURKER!

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:54 pm
by longlostposter
Kwicherbichen is stalking Lurker. ha ha ha.

Rotsa ruck.

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:13 pm
by Lurker
kwicherbichen wrote:LURKER!
Why am I being called?

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:35 pm
by kwicherbichen

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:52 pm
by Lurker
kwicherbichen wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7243350/site/newsweek/

What does this mean?
Very good question (and good find). Though the title of the article is altogether misleading (it didn't give us the "truth" it advertised it would) and whoever penned it gave it completely the wrong one for another reason too (gender and sex aren't the same thing), I'm going to assume that's not the fault of the scientstists involved.

Anyway, I'm not sure what it means (it seems they aren't either). As we've discussed previously, there are definitely biological differences in males and females (including their brains), but - as this indicates - we don't know what, if any, results that has on personality and behavior.

Given the widespread differences among the sexes - every bit as much as between them - that we can verify, though, I think - until they can determine some cause and effect for this - that it best we continue to not assume that there's inherent major differences. There may well prove to be some, but for now, it's just as likely that the differences between the male and the female brains produce much the same end results.

Where these studies tend to be potentially misleading, I think, is that they use the male version as the point of reference/standard, and it becomes easy to infer (even unintentionally) that there must be some kind of difference as a result. In fact, male elements tend to be treated as the standard in most cases.